Bruce Schaalje Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Wow!I'm not easily impressed, but I'm absolutely stunned. So many 100%s!!!Thanks you.Daleps -- The word-print of Enos really matches that of Joseph Smith by 100.00%?Does the word-print for the BoM Preface match Smith's at that same level?Dale,There
Bruce Schaalje Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Wow!I'm not easily impressed, but I'm absolutely stunned. So many 100%s!!!Thanks you.Daleps -- The word-print of Enos really matches that of Joseph Smith by 100.00%?Does the word-print for the BoM Preface match Smith's at that same level?I should also mention that I would have had the 'wow' reaction to the posterior probabilities too if I hadn't first seen Figure 10 (the principal components plot) that shows how different the vast majority of Book of Mormon chapters are from writings of all of the candidate authors (other than the Isaiah chapters).
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 OK that didn't work either. I'll just attach it to this.Wow... 8 by smith... 3 by rigdon1... 13 by rigdon2... 2 by spalding... 0 by pratt... 2 by cowdery... 36 by isaiah... and 176 by other.That's a pretty snazzy chart... hmmm... do you mind if I mess with it in excel?... I'd be curious how the plotting comes out.
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Or, would they BOTH score near 100%?I think the sum of their scores would be near 100. But they'd probably be around that 50-50 range if that was the case.
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I am also curious as to why Ether 3, 4, and 5 are coming out as Isaiah... it is Isaiah like speech, but I didn't think it was that close.
Uncle Dale Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I am also curious as to why Ether 3, 4, and 5 are coming out as Isaiah... it is Isaiah like speech, but I didn't think it was that close.According to my old seminary teachers, Isaiah is a composite text with three distinct, contiguous sections. So, I assume that it is "1st Isaiah" whose word-print so closely matches some of Ether. If a word-print was developed from the entirety of the biblical Isaiah chapters, it would probably be meaningless.Please do entertain us with a snazzy Excel bar chart -- but, I suppose you'll have to break it into sections. 239 bars in a row might be a tad too broad a chart to feature on the MB.UD
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Please do entertain us with a snazzy Excel bar chart -- but, I suppose you'll have to break it into sections. 239 bars in a row might be a tad too broad a chart to feature on the MB.UDYah, just found out that one =P. I'll try other ways of doing it.
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Ok, here it is:http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5O4K7TZD*Note you will have to wait 45 seconds to actually download. Just wait the time, sorry =P.*Note 2 - THE CHART IS ON SHEET2, NOT SHEET1.If you'd like me to take it down Bruce (I haven't gotten your permission yet), feel free to ask =).Also yah, the chart isn't that snazzy right now, but I'm thinking of doing something with it later. Right now it's just chapter-included, parallel aligned with the data, and freeze-paned but I want to see what else I can do with it.
Uncle Dale Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 ...So -- that's the way my mind works. When I see three dozen "latent" attributions in a row, at 100% certainty, I view them in the same way that I did the 100% fingerprint matches....Although my non-expert's view of statistical reporting may be a very cloudy one, I'm still inclined to view Bruce's reporting in terms of fingerprint analysis.We have a "scene of interest" where 239 fingerprint impressions have been discovered and documented. Some of those prints are very similar and others vary in sundry ways.But, of the "fingerprints" so far tested, we can say that a few definitely belong to St. Matthew, a few to Malachi, and several to Isaiah.All of the remaining "fingerprints" definitely do NOT belong to Joseph Smith, Jr.; Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Sidney Rigdon; Solomon Spalding; nor other tested writers.Until ALL of the "fingerprints" of writers operating before 1830 can be tested, nobody can say for certain that none of them ever contributed to the Book of Mormon -- but the odds in favor of any such 19th century contributor ever being credited with writing a part of the Book of Mormon are near zero.Did I summarize the current consensus fairly well?UD
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.